Keystone XL Vetoed

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
  • #7087

    As promised.

    Obama vetoes Keystone XL pipeline, leaving it in limbo
    (Reuters) – President Barack Obama on Tuesday, as promised, swiftly vetoed a Republican bill approving the Keystone XL oil pipeline, leaving the long-debated project in limbo for another indefinite period.

    The U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, after receiving Obama’s veto message, immediately countered by announcing the Republican-led chamber would attempt to override it by March 3.

    That is unlikely. Despite their majority, Republicans are four votes short of being able to overturn Obama’s veto.


    An override of the Keystone veto is unlikely. The bill passed the House 270-152 and the Senate 62-36, margins well short of the two-thirds majorities needed to override. McConnell said a veto override vote will be scheduled by March 3.

    Good bipartisan support here. But once again Obama is defying the will of the people for the sake of special interests. We need a Republican President.


    “Defying the will of the people”? I wasn’t aware that there was any kind of national referendum on this bill. How come I didn’t get to vote? He’s “defying” (if that’s the word you want to use) a highly partisan Congress, using the powers granted by the Constitution. The latest poll I find also shows that Obama is doing EXACTLY what a majority of the American people want:

    “The telephone poll of 1,003 adults was conducted between Jan. 12 and 15, and prefaced the question about Keystone XL with some background on the pipeline debate. A poll of that size has a 3.5 point error margin.

    “Obama has said he won’t decide whether to approve a new oil pipeline from Canada to Texas until a review has determined whether it is in the national interest. The Republicans in Congress are working on a law to authorize the pipeline without Obama’s approval,” the question stated. Half of the survey’s respondents were then asked which side they supported.

    Only 34% of respondents said the pipeline should be authorized now, while 61% said the review should be completed before a decision is made. Another 2% did not want the pipeline to be allowed and 3% had no opinion.”

    Andy Brown

    F&B, you can’t even echo your own party line with any accuracy. Leaving out key elements of a story is reflective of your partisan hack approach to everything and underscores your lack of capable parsing of a political event.


    Obama was elected with a good majority of voters in 2008, so he’s actually keeping the promise to the majority.

    I actually have to question the benefit of this project. With a worldwide oil glut and more cars becoming more efficient, is this really a good investment? Or is it just another giveaway to the oil industry hoping to get some ROI in their previous investments in votes?

    Let Canada refine that shit.



    “Tons of jobs…”


    “minimal environmental impact…”

    Except for the continued big-picture problems of pollution, spills, carbon emissions…


    Aw, don’t be so hard on yourself, Broadway.

    Deane Johnson

    Trains of tank cars rolling through the countryside over questionable trackage at times would be much better than an underground pipeline, don’t you think.

    Don’t the folks in West Virginia have some recent experience with this, not to mention a small town in Canada.


    I’m curious about something.

    Isn’t the GOP supposed to be the stalwart champion of freedom and private property rights?

    Is it unacceptable for a Government to seize private property for say a road or other public works project, but fine and dandy for an Oil Company to seize private property for a pipeline, or for a Sports complex like George W. Bush did for the Rangers Stadium in Dallas?


    “We need a Republican President”

    Sorry. No.

    Republican Presidents have not served us very well at all, and the current clown posse getting ready to run does not present any better leadership visions.


    Why? So they can hide the leaks?

    Hell, I would oppose it on that basis alone.

    The truth is we don’t need that pipeline. Transcanada does.

    We won’t get the profit from that pipeline, Transcanada will.

    We will experience the cost and risk exposure, Transcanada won’t.

    As mentioned already, let them refine that crap. Yeah, it’s expensive as hell. Funny how external costs add up isn’t it?

    It’s expensive enough to warrant moving away from toxic fuel sources.

    If we do that?

    We get the jobs, we get the profits, we share the cost and risk exposure, etc…

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.